It's okay, there's a bright future for Damore as Leader of the Commons.
Jk. Anyway, I lost interest in this article after Kieren said:
The document is an embarrassment. It views everything and everyone in black-and-white terms: you are a man or a woman; you are white, or you are not; you are right-wing or you are left-wing.
Unlike this article (which treats the "manifesto" in absolute black and white terms), the document does no such thing. It goes to lengths - literally on page one - to state that the generalisations do not apply to all women or all men, but are just that - demographic generalisations which can be used as a basis for discussion at an industry scale. They are not a discussion on individual hiring decisions.
There is a great deal to dislike or disagree with in the manifesto, and much of it just plain wrong, but most commentators have also ignored his slew of grievances with such Google practices as reviewing team make-up if they do not hit certain diversity quotas. Assuming you have selected by Merit in the first place, such a review means - by definition - that you are bringing in a "second choice" in order to hit your diversity quota. By arbitrarily writing off the entire thing, you prevent dialogue or discussion.
I was pleased to see that Google's own CEO show a much more mature response than Google's Diversity Officer or indeed Kieren.
First, let me say that we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it. However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.
He acknowledges that Damore crossed a line, whilst also admitting that there are elements worthy of debate. That's a well considered response. Short article from Inc about why it's a great response.
This article pretty much falls directly into the issue the "manifesto" was attempting to address:
Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence.
Diversity does become a distraction sometimes when people try and force it. I was involved in an application a few years back to a grants body to develop facilities at a local sports club. They gave us a very hard time about how we were not sufficiently ethnically diverse. We had enough women but all 90 of our members were "White British". They only backed off after we sought the 2011 Census data and showed that the area was 99.2% White British. Minorities would have been more than welcome, but none had come knocking on the door. Just one member from a minority would have made us more statistically diverse than the actual local area! All things must be considered in proportion.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
